The Role of Management Consulting In Destruction of the Middle Class

[FondrenRoad 4378]

6 hours ago, Rougarou said:

The article talks about what you are describing, the "Mail room to Corner office". I think the snap occurred because of many breaks in the old rubber-band, but mostly the mobility of the worker due to a rise in population and the demise of the corporate pension plan and unions. To your points about rewarding loyalty; I think the toothpaste is out of the tube with regards to corporate loyalty. Corporations (the rule, not the exception) don't want it and we don't want to give it, because doing so is usually a losing proposition in the long run. 

Overall I think the article did a better job when and of raising questions rather then when tried to land an answer. When the article went into lamentations for an era long passed when WWII boom artificially gave birth to a middle class and, ironically, a bloat of middle management which consist of people that carry a high, negative, fully-blended cost (benefits, insurance, taxes, salary, etc.) against the value they add. These middle managers we all make fun of and that we all think of as worthless and inefficient (until we read articles like this, and don't). Maybe it was the references to to "mid-century" and I kept thinking of Brady Bunch furniture, but It felt very nostalgic for even before WWII for a time when a Protestant work ethic and, an "honest days labor for an honest day's work" and other management strategies and practices from when business and management was first an area of study, were the rule of the day.

There are a variety of reasons why mailroom to corner office doesn't happen anymore. Stigma is one of them.  After getting his degree at night school, he is going to have to jump companies to move up most likely. 

But the real problem is that there isn't true job growth across the board, and the management pyramid is pretty static. The middle manager doesn't have a spot "next" to him for that mailroom guy to fill. He just has his own spot and he hangs onto it jealously.  The manager above that manager never retires and does the same, and the C level is replaced externally when positions come open. About half of the manager pyramid is completely useless and exists just to exist. 

[Parliament 14135]

51 posts in and no pissbagging. This is not the Cloak Room I was raised in.

[hayden_horn 11360]

19 hours ago, Rougarou said:

Overall I think the article did a better job when and of raising questions rather then when tried to land an answer. When the article went into lamentations for an era long passed when WWII boom artificially gave birth to a middle class and, ironically, a bloat of middle management which consist of people that carry a high, negative, fully-blended cost (benefits, insurance, taxes, salary, etc.) against the value they add. These middle managers we all make fun of and that we all think of as worthless and inefficient (until we read articles like this, and don't). Maybe it was the references to to "mid-century" and I kept thinking of Brady Bunch furniture, but It felt very nostalgic for even before WWII for a time when a Protestant work ethic and, an "honest days labor for an honest day's work" and other management strategies and practices from when business and management was first an area of study, were the rule of the day.

regarding the emphasized part of this very good post, i think there is definitely room for proper middle management. i'm a guy who works on a product that makes (relatively) a lot of money for my company. i'm not going to report to the ceo, that makes no sense. now, i do not need an array of bosses a la office space. but i do need a guy to whom i report - and that guy is technically a middle manager. and when he moves on or up, it's possible that i (or my other team members) should be considered for that job, and that the junior guy helping me in developing this product would then have an opportunity to take over the product.

that's how this should work, and that's what the article definitely laments to a degree. this assumes that my manager has a spot to move up into, however, and that is not always the case in the modern work world. frequently, the c-suite is full of outside MBA types, and not accessible from the middle management pool. this is not always the case, but frequently it is. if companies prioritize employee mobility, then employees might be more loyal. also, when a company has a reputation for laying off employees, then you'll basically end up with mercenaries, who are notoriously disloyal. 

once again, it's a focus on short term results rather than the long term goals. tactics vs strategy. i don't see this as much in european companies as i do in the us. it seems to be a very american problem.

Edited February 5, 2020 by hayden_horn

[Rougarou 594]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

regarding the emphasized part of this very good post, i think there is definitely room for proper middle management. i'm a guy who works on a product that makes (relatively) a lot of money for my company. i'm not going to report to the ceo, that makes no sense. now, i do not need an array of bosses a la office space. but i do need a guy to whom i report - and that guy is technically a middle manager. and when he moves on or up, it's possible that i (or my other team members) should be considered for that job, and that the junior guy helping me in developing this product would then have an opportunity to take over the product.

that's how this should work, and that's what the article definitely laments to a degree. this assumes that my manager has a spot to move up into, however, and that is not always the case in the modern work world. frequently, the c-suite is full of outside MBA types, and not accessible from the middle management pool. this is not always the case, but frequently it is. if companies prioritize employee mobility, then employees might be more loyal. also, when a company has a reputation for laying off employees, then you'll basically end up with mercenaries, who are notoriously disloyal. 

once again, it's a focus on short term results rather than the long term goals. tactics vs strategy. i don't see this as much in european companies as i do in the us. it seems to be a very american problem.

All I am saying is if you think strat and management consulting guys are bad, wait until you hear about these guys up in New York called bankers!

In all seriousness, here is a good article about the modern state of Private Equity which is worth the read: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-10-03/how-private-equity-works-and-took-over-everything